God Loves, Man Kills...

[MistressMerr]

I really don't see how five fake-out deaths in one story would qualify as doing anything well. Is the story synopsis inaccurate? Did the writer of the synopsis mislead me or did the story's events happen as he says they did? Having not read it I can't make a complete assessment, yet this synopsis paints the story as being quite bad....At the moment, it's all I have to go on.

Dana

When the characters are revealed as being alive barely a few pages later, it hardly counts. The purpose was to have the other characters believe they were dead and then figure out that they weren't for plot purposes, not to trick the audience into thinking that half the main characters had just been unceremoniously killed off, no different than when the X-Men "died" in Dallas. Heck, by that logic, Byrne's Alpha Flight was full of shoddy writing between Sasquatch's fake-out death and those of Northstar/Aurora/Talisman when they went to go bring him back. It was just a story beat. You need to actually read the thing for yourself before you judge it.

My only real complaints against GLMK come from the way that, like I said before, it is really heavy-handed in places, which, considering the way Claremont normally gets when dealing with matters of race or religion, is really saying something, but the strength of the story pulls it through, IMO.

[cmdrkoenig67]

When the characters are revealed as being alive barely a few pages later, it hardly counts. The purpose was to have the other characters believe they were dead and then figure out that they weren't for plot purposes, not to trick the audience into thinking that half the main characters had just been unceremoniously killed off, no different than when the X-Men "died" in Dallas. Heck, by that logic, Byrne's Alpha Flight was full of shoddy writing between Sasquatch's fake-out death and those of Northstar/Aurora/Talisman when they went to go bring him back. It was just a story beat. You need to actually read the thing for yourself before you judge it.

Hold on there!...Sasquatch didn't die a "fake-out" death....Not in the least. He did not show up hale and hearty a couple pages later. Snowbird ripped the beating heart out of his chest...He was dead, his soul was merely trapped in the realm of the Great Beasts (do I really have to explain all of this?)....Yet when Alpha retrieved it, he had no living body to return to (he was still technically dead). Shaman simply used the Box robot as a shell to contain Walter's soul. Walter was never the same character again after those events...How on Earth can it called a fake-out death?

The deaths of Northstar, Aurora and Talisman were equally not "fake-out deaths"...They too were killed, dead, murdered. Walter Langkowski used a part of his soul to resurrect them. I don't see how any of the actual Alphan deaths can be compared to a faked death, illusory death or a death that is misinterpreted, even for a couple of pages...They died (according to the synopsis, none of the X-Men actually did)!

In GLMK: in both instances of their "deaths", was the reading audience aware the whole time that Storm, Cyclops and Professor X really alive?...if so, then I would agree that Claremont was only tricking their fellow X-Men into believing they were dead (in-story) and not trying to fake-out the audience. If the reader is not aware of their "deaths' being anything other than real while reading the story, then I call foul.

My only real complaints against GLMK come from the way that, like I said before, it is really heavy-handed in places, which, considering the way Claremont normally gets when dealing with matters of race or religion, is really saying something, but the strength of the story pulls it through, IMO.

MM, neither you nor anybody else answered my questions my post about the synopsis of GLMK. I suppose I'll have to wait and get my answers from reading the graphic novel itself.

Dana

[MistressMerr]

Hold on there!...Sasquatch didn't die a "fake-out" death....Not in the least. He did not show up hale and hearty a couple pages later. Snowbird ripped the beating heart out of his chest...He was dead, his soul was merely trapped in the realm of the Great Beasts (do I really have to explain all of this?)....Yet when Alpha retrieved it, he had no living body to return to (he was still technically dead). Shaman simply used the Box robot as a shell to contain Walter's soul. Walter was never the same character again after those events...How on Earth can it called a fake-out death?

The deaths of Northstar, Aurora and Talisman were equally not "fake-out deaths"...They too were killed, dead, murdered. Walter Langkowski used a part of his soul to resurrect them. I don't see how any of the actual Alphan deaths can be compared to a faked death, illusory death or a death that is misinterpreted, even for a couple of pages...They died (according to the synopsis, none of the X-Men actually did)!

Oh, so if the character ACTUALLY dies for just a few pages it's okay, if the character is only thought to be dead it's not? So cheap on-the-fly resurrections are okay, revealing they weren't actually killed is not? Alrighty then.

In GLMK: in both instances of their "deaths", was the reading audience aware the whole time that Storm, Cyclops and Professor X really alive?...if so, then I would agree that Claremont was only tricking their fellow X-Men into believing they were dead (in-story) and not trying to fake-out the audience. If the reader is not aware of their "deaths' being anything other than real while reading the story, then I call foul.

For all of a page before the X-Men (and thus the readers) realize "Wait, this is total bull." It hardly counts as much of a fake-out.

MM, neither you nor anybody else answered my questions my post about the synopsis of GLMK. I suppose I'll have to wait and get my answers from reading the graphic novel itself.

What questions? About whether it's accurate or not? Yes, it's a pretty accurate synopsis. But that still doesn't mean you can judge something without actually having read it to get the full picture.

[DIGGER]

What questions? About whether it's accurate or not? Yes, it's a pretty accurate synopsis. But that still doesn't mean you can judge something without actually having read it to get the full picture.

I have to agree. Read the actual story and come to your own conclusions, otherwise no matter what other source you are getting your info from, it is based on that persons impressions or interpretation of the story.

DIGGER

[cmdrkoenig67]

Oh, so if the character ACTUALLY dies for just a few pages it's okay, if the character is only thought to be dead it's not? So cheap on-the-fly resurrections are okay, revealing they weren't actually killed is not? Alrighty then.

It depends on the way it's done...Claremont did it five times in that one book (and all of them were fake deaths, nobody really died)...It seems pretty cheap to me, IMHO. There is no need to get nasty about it.

For all of a page before the X-Men (and thus the readers) realize "Wait, this is total bull." It hardly counts as much of a fake-out.

It's still a fake out, if the reader isn't in on the secret. It's a bit different if the reader knows a hero isn't really dead, but the characters don't. Fooling the reader for a few pages is also fine, but several times over in the same story? It comes across as repetitive, sensationalized, shoddy writing.

What questions? About whether it's accurate or not? Yes, it's a pretty accurate synopsis. But that still doesn't mean you can judge something without actually having read it to get the full picture.

Yes, because I haven't heard that enough in this thread...I did say I was going to read the story in my last post, did I not?

Dana

[DIGGER]

It depends on the way it's done...Claremont did it five times in that one book (and all of them were fake deaths, nobody really died)...It seems pretty cheap to me, IMHO. There is no need to get nasty about it.



Yes, because I haven't heard that enough in this thread...I did say I was going to read the story in my last post, did I not?

Dana

Yes you did and I think (to quote Stan The Man) 'NUFF SAID!

DIGGER

[cmdrkoenig67]

Ty.

Dana

[MistressMerr]

It depends on the way it's done...Claremont did it five times in that one book (and all of them were fake deaths, nobody really died)...It seems pretty cheap to me, IMHO. There is no need to get nasty about it.


It's still a fake out, if the reader isn't in on the secret. It's a bit different if the reader knows a hero isn't really dead, but the characters don't. Fooling the reader for a few pages is also fine, but several times over in the same story? It comes across as repetitive, sensationalized, shoddy writing.

Didn't mean to come across as nasty, just meant that your reply sounded kinda hypocritical. Also (I haven't actually read the whole synopsis up there and it's been a while since I've read the story in question), what five deaths are you referring to? The only ones I remember are the Professor, Storm, and Cyclops, and they happened all at once. These weren't a whole bunch of individual "fake-outs" happening over and over again, it was all at once, one plot point.

[Le Messor]

The only fake-out deaths I remember were really one single event, as has been mentioned. So it's not really fair to accuse GLMK of 'five fake-out deaths'; more like 'one fake-out of five deaths'.

I can't believe this has turned into a "religious" conversation...

Well, that is a major theme of the book in question.

I am in no way saying it's all Christians who are like this...But let's face it, "Christian" churches (whether it be Catholic, Protestant, Baptist, Mormon, etc...) have made (and are still making) a terrible name for themselves

And I'm not denying those people exist. They are quite real; but they're in the minority in real life. I've never met anyone as bad as, say, Westboro... but in fiction, they are the vast majority.
In order to be fair, reporting can't just be accurate - it has to be balanced; and while this may be accurate, it is by no means balanced.

Sticking to the X-Men (since that's just what I know best), off the top of my head, Cyclops, Havok, Karma, Gambit, Banshee, Siryn, Dazzler

MM, I admire your optimism, but I can't share it.
See, I think you and I are speaking a different language here. I think I'll need to define my terms:
When I say Christian, I mean somebody with a strong faith; one that affects their everyday life. Somebody who believes in and cares and thinks about God and Jesus, who follows their teachings and have a faith that is a big part of their life.
What I do not mean is somebody who once showed up in a church. I do not mean somebody who hangs out in a social club once a week, or twice a year.
I definitely do not mean somebody whose parents showed up in church once, or even somebody whose parents were devout. I absolutely do not mean somebody who I haven't been told isn't Christian.

You listed Cyclops as a Christian character.
I have hundreds of issues of X-Men - by no means all, but a lot. I don't know how many I've read with him in them, but again, it must be in the hundreds. We're talking about somebody whose thoughts I can literally read (being that they're written in little bubbles above his head).
When you say he's Christian, I have no idea what you're talking about. I don't know where you get it from; I'm not saying nowhere, just that I can't remember ever seeing it - and if I came to think he was Christian, I would remember. I've spent far too much time with him and know him far too well for it to have never come up.
That alone is enough for me to say he isn't Christian.

I can't remember him ever going to church - certainly not regularly. Ever reading or referencing the Bible. Ever praying. Ever spending time, or trying to spend time, with other Christians. Ever saying 'I am Christian'. Ever seriously talking about God.

That alone is enough for me to say he isn't Christian.

What does he do?
He calls Ororo a goddess, he kills and orders people to kill, he leaves his wife and child for an old girlfriend, he has sex outside of marriage - all without the slightest thought of the theological implications. I have never seen him think 'Maybe if I call myself a Christian I shouldn't be doing these things', not even to follow up with 'but I can't help it'.
(It's the not thinking about it that's the important thing here, not the actions themselves.)

That alone is enough for me to say he isn't Christian.

And yet, you say he is. S'rously, why? I don't even know where you get it from. Were his parents or grandparents shown in a church once? (I noticed his brother was on your list). I'm curious, but I'm going to warn you - nothing will make me think Scott Summers is actually a Christian character. Any definition of 'Christian' that stretches so far as to include somebody who shows not the slightest sign of any faith in or care or thought about God is meaningless to me.

In comics, God, his word, his morality and his people are at best ignored; at worst, mocked, belittled and villified. I've read from one end of the X-Men to the next (though again, not all of it) and I've read a lot of weird stuff - but I've seen nothing to make me think Scott Summers is a follower of Christ. And yet you're using him to say 'see, Christians are represented in comics - they're in the majority'.

I cannot agree with you on that one.

- Mik
(Sorry, Dana... you can imagine this is something I feel strongly about.)

[Flightpath07]

Have to say I agree with Mik.

I suppose all I can really add to that is, to me, my understanding of being a Christian is the literal one; a follower of Christ. Not so much a follower of His teachings but literally following Him. I take some umbrage with the word "Christian" being used to describe anybody who beleives that there is a God. "Being a Christian" is all about the word "be"; it is something you are, and not just something you beleive, or say you beleive.

Sorry to hijack the topic about a comic book, but this is a subject I feel passionately about.

[cmdrkoenig67]

Didn't mean to come across as nasty, just meant that your reply sounded kinda hypocritical. Also (I haven't actually read the whole synopsis up there and it's been a while since I've read the story in question), what five deaths are you referring to? The only ones I remember are the Professor, Storm, and Cyclops, and they happened all at once. These weren't a whole bunch of individual "fake-outs" happening over and over again, it was all at once, one plot point.

I was going by the synopsis parts Chapter 1, scene 4: Where Prof X, Storm and Cyclops supposedly die from gunshots and an explosion....Then Chapter 3, scene 3: Where Prof X is forced to "kill" Storm and Cyclops (then Magneto heals them or whatever, since he discovers they aren't really dead). That's 5 "deaths".

Dana

http://www.sidekickcomicsuk.com/blog...ric-crib-sheet

[cmdrkoenig67]

Mik, FP...I understand how you both feel and there is nothing wrong with discussing it here.

I was raised in a variety of church settings, since I was very small. First taken to Congregational by my Great Grandparents at the age of 5, then later by my mother to Seventh Day Adventist church, then to a Baptist church. As an adult, I've also attended another Baptist church, a Mennonite church and shortly after, an Episcopalian church...I'm a bit of a church gypsy. I have not been to church in many years now (at least not since my early thirties).

I have my beliefs and my own relationship with God and Jesus, but there's also a disconnect I feel being not "normal". There's no getting around it, I am who and what I am and there is no way to change that.

Dana

[Le Messor]

Mik, FP...I understand how you both feel and there is nothing wrong with discussing it here.

Well, we are hijacking your thread to do it.

For the record, Nightcrawler was mentioned as Christian in Uncanny #165, cover date January 1982 (I believe that was the first mention). God Loves, Man Kills was printed in 1982. Because of the weirdness of the publishing schedule - April-December 1982 came before January-March 1982, I cannot tell if he was revealed before then or not. (I had always felt GLMK was much later, and assumed it was long-established by that time.)

Dana - nothing wrong with hopping denominations, though I know what you're referring to when you say you don't feel normal.

Reviewing the issue:
Yes, there is a scene in the beginning where the audience is led to believe three X-Men are shot (and the characters believe they died in a car accident - and I agree with the difference between the characters being led to believe in a death and the audience believing it)... and, yep - both those scenes exist. The audience is led to believe Storm and Cyke are killed at the end of chapter 3. It's still only two incidents, which may be too many.
I think the reason they don't cause that much of a problem for me is that they're really far apart, and aren't played up that much as genuine death scenes. At least, not the second so much.

Though I'll let you judge when you read it.

- Le Messor
"Help stamp out and abolish redundancy!"

[MistressMerr]

Well, we are hijacking your thread to do it.

For the record, Nightcrawler was mentioned as Christian in Uncanny #165, cover date January 1982 (I believe that was the first mention). God Loves, Man Kills was printed in 1982. Because of the weirdness of the publishing schedule - April-December 1982 came before January-March 1982, I cannot tell if he was revealed before then or not. (I had always felt GLMK was much later, and assumed it was long-established by that time.)

1982, really? Wow, you're right, it really does feel like it came out later than that. Given the nature of the Marvel Graphic Novels, I'd say at the very least the story was written long before that of Uncanny #165, but it's all so close together, I'd say it's also a moot point.

As for your definition of what constitutes a Christian character, going by that, there are very few religious characters in comics period, Christian or not. Of ones where religion was an active part of their lives in the time frame we're dealing with here, I can think of Kitty and Ororo, and that's faded for the both of them as the years have gone on, while Kurt's faith has been played up more and more. That's about it. In that case, it's hardly that there's a dearth of Christian characters in comics, it's that religion just doesn't tend to be a large part of most superheroes' lives.

[MistressMerr]

I think the reason they don't cause that much of a problem for me is that they're really far apart, and aren't played up that much as genuine death scenes. At least, not the second so much.

Yeah, I think this is the clincher for me. It's not like those comics that advertise on the cover "TONIGHT AN X-MAN DIES!!!!!" and then it turns out to be some flaky "DUN DUN DUN!!!!!......... nevermind it's all better now" deal. Even ignoring the fact that I know the characters are still around 30 years later, reading it, I never would have been like "OMG THEY KILLED THEM WHAT?"